The Bible can it be trusted?

[Theophilos]

You weren't specific, but if you referring to the verse actually quoted from Amos, 9:11, I don't see a substantive difference. If you are referring to the context in which it was used, provided, by Acts 15::17, then there is no verifiable evidence for your claim. In other words, without a copy of Amos which predates Acts there is no way to tell if the translation, the LXX, was revised to match Acts 15:17.

It is agreed that Acts 15 is an accurate record of what occurred, but there is no evidence to support your claim that Acts 15:17 quotes Amos 9:12 from the LXX rather than Amos in the LXX being revised to match Acts 15:17.

Here is the text for Amos 9 in Greek and English. The quote in Acts 15:17 is a paraphrase of the Greek text.

1 I saw the Lord standing on the altar: and he said, Smite the mercy-seat, and ... AMOS / ΑΜΩΣ9 - Bilingual Septuagint

www.ellopos.net

 

[Theophilos]

False:
in 5 BC the Jews did not reject Christ:
We use the same collection of Sacred Writings that were kept in God's Holy Temple in 5BC


False:
Any writing breathed-out by God is more authoritative than anything the Church says.

Okay, please provide a link to the list of books in the Jewish Temple in 5 BC and we can work from there.

 

[1Thess521]

Okay, please provide a link to the list of books in the Jewish Temple in 5 BC and we can work from there.

I have:
It is a count by categories:
and no matter how you do the math
the deuterocanonical books are not included.

but more importantly:
would it make any difference to you?

Josephus describes the collection of Temple Scrolls
Against Apion 1:8
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;

and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death.

This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes,

the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books.

The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.
----------------------
Josephus directly refutes the Greek texts: ;
gives the time period of the divine writings: (from Moses to 425BC)
gives the category and counts of the books

 

[Theophilos]

I have:
It is a count by categories:
and no matter how you do the math
the deuterocanonical books are not included.

but more importantly:
would it make any difference to you?

All I have seen is a cryptic passage allegedly from Josephus that dates from about 100 years later, and the number of books does not agree with that found in the modern Hebrew bible.

We have complete Christian bibles from the early fourth century that include the Deuterocanon in the Old Testament. I trust the Christians over Josephus.

 

[1Thess521]

All I have seen is a cryptic passage allegedly from Josephus that dates from about 100 years later, and the number of books does not agree with that found in the modern Hebrew bible.

We have complete Christian bibles from the early fourth century that include the Deuterocanon in the Old Testament. I trust the Christians over Josephus.

I am not trusting Josephus.
I am trusting that God -Almighty ordained to be kept in God's Holy Temple for God's chosen people, while God-Incarnate sat on steps or walk through the court yard.
does that matter do you?

Josephus directly refutes the Greek texts: ;
gives the time period of the divine writings: (from Moses to 425BC)
gives the category and counts of the books:
does that matter do you?

If Josephus give a list of Books included in the Scrolls (instead of the category and counts of the books)
QUESTION--->Would that matter do you?

 

[1Thess521]

We have complete Christian bibles from the early fourth century that include the Deuterocanon in the Old Testament. I trust the Christians over Josephus.

but what you call "complete Christian bibles from the early fourth century"
also includes writings that no one believes are Divinely inspired:
QUESTION---> Is that correct?

 

[BJ Bear]

Here is the text for Amos 9 in Greek and English. The quote in Acts 15:17 is a paraphrase of the Greek text.

1 I saw the Lord standing on the altar: and he said, Smite the mercy-seat, and ... AMOS / ΑΜΩΣ9 - Bilingual Septuagint

www.ellopos.net

Thanks, but I've read them and what you've provided doesn't establish which was written first.

 

[mica]

All I have seen is a cryptic passage allegedly from Josephus that dates from about 100 years later, and the number of books does not agree with that found in the modern Hebrew bible.

We have complete Christian bibles from the early fourth century that include the Deuterocanon in the Old Testament. I trust the Christians over Josephus.

who is 'we'? the RCC / catholics?

 

[BJ Bear]

.

We have complete Christian bibles from the early fourth century that include the Deuterocanon in the Old Testament. I trust the Christians over Josephus.

If true then that would be an interesting phenomena since the earliest caudex that is complete and listed in N/A XXVII Is from the fifth century, aleph 01.

 

[Theophilos]

who is 'we'? the RCC / catholics?

We refers to the people of the world.

Two of the earliest Christian bibles are at the British Library in London:

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Codex Alexandrinus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another one is at the Vatican:

Codex Vaticanus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of the Christian bibles are written in Greek and their Old Testaments include books from the Deuterocanon.

The oldest complete Hebrew bible dates from about 700 years later:

Leningrad Codex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[mica]

Theophilos said:
All I have seen is a cryptic passage allegedly from Josephus that dates from about 100 years later, and the number of books does not agree with that found in the modern Hebrew bible.

We have complete Christian bibles from the early fourth century that include the Deuterocanon in the Old Testament. I trust the Christians over Josephus.

We refers to the people of the world.

Two of the earliest Christian bibles are at the British Library in London:

Codex Sinaiticus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Codex Alexandrinus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another one is at the Vatican:

Codex Vaticanus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All of the Christian bibles are written in Greek and their Old Testaments include books from the Deuterocanon.

The oldest complete Hebrew bible dates from about 700 years later:

Leningrad Codex - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

wiki is not my go to place for info that one can actually believe.

 

[Theophilos]

I have:
It is a count by categories:
and no matter how you do the math
the deuterocanonical books are not included.

but more importantly:
would it make any difference to you?

Josephus describes the collection of Temple Scrolls
Against Apion 1:8
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;

and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death.

This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes,

the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books.

The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.

It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.
----------------------
Josephus directly refutes the Greek texts: ;
gives the time period of the divine writings: (from Moses to 425BC)
gives the category and counts of the books

The outline from Josephus is two books short of the number in the modern Hebrew canon. Most likely Chronicles and Esther were added later. Delete those books if you believe that the cryptic words of Josephus are the final say on the Old Testament canon.

As for as the Book of Sirach, the Jewish Talmud quotes it as scripture in multiple locations as noted by the Protestant bible scholar, Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.:

Sirach is quoted three times in the Talmud as scripture. It is twice quoted with the introductory formula, "for so it is written in the Book of Ben Sira."35 Ben Sira is also sometimes quoted as "Writings" when the rabbis were proof-texting, e.g., "This matter is written in the Pentateuch as written. . . , repeated in the Prophets, as written. . . , mentioned a third time in the Hagiographa, as written, (here Sirach 12.15 is quoted), it was learned in the Mishnah, . . . ."36 Pfeiffer (1941:66) tells us that the Hebrew text of Sirach was still being copied as late as the twelfth century C.E. It is cited by name in Sanhedrin 100b (= Yeb. 63c), which quotes several verses. According to L. Israel (1905:390) single verses appear in: Yer. Ber. 11b; Yer. Hag. 77c; Yer. Ta'an. 66d; Hag. 13a; Niddah 16b; Gen. R. 8, 10, 73; Lev. R. 33; Tan. Wayishlah 8; Tan., Mikkez. 10; Tan. Hukkat. 1; etc.

Sundberg: Old Testament of the Early Church

Hebrew manuscripts for most of Sirach exist after 19th century discoveries at the library of an ancient synagogue in Egypt, and Sirach appears in all of the earliest surviving Christian bibles.

 

[1Thess521]

The outline from Josephus is two books short of the number in the modern Hebrew canon. Most likely Chronicles and Esther were added later. Delete those books if you believe that the cryptic words of Josephus are the final say on the Old Testament canon.

and no matter how you do the math;
the deuterocanonical books are not included among the Temple Scrolls

 

[Theophilos]

wiki is not my go to place for info that one can actually believe.

Yes, I agree for anything with political implications.

Here are links to the British Museum and the Vatican if you prefer.

British Library

www.bl.uk

British Library

www.bl.uk

The Codex Vaticanus

The Codex Vaticanus is perhaps the most important of all the manuscripts of the Holy Scripture. The Codex Vaticanus is believed to be among the oldest copies of the Greek Bible in existence. It is called so because it is conserved in the Vatican Library. The Codex Vaticanus is a quarto volume...

vatican.com

 

[BJ Bear]

So a greek translation of the o.t. hebrew is God breathed? Says who?

It is a myth either created or believed by Augustine. He should only be read with great caution because he just came out and flatly said that if the church says X it must be true and then he on to make up reasons why X is true, see his On The Care Of The Dead.

 

[Maxtar]

Any writing breathed-out by God is more authoritative than anything the Church says.

A writing breathed out by God: 1 Timothy 3:14-15, “14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

The writer is speaking on behalf of "the Church" and once again we see authority emanating from the leadership level of the Church. Personal interpretation of the scriptures is fraught with danger as people are apt to interpret them to suit there own preconceived notions. If personal interpretation was to be the the standard, there would have been no need for an institutional church to be established on this earth. Jesus would have just wrote the book Himself and that would have been that.

 

[BJ Bear]

The outline from Josephus is two books short of the number in the modern Hebrew canon. Most likely Chronicles and Esther were added later. Delete those books if you believe that the cryptic words of Josephus are the final say on the Old Testament canon.

As for as the Book of Sirach, the Jewish Talmud quotes it as scripture in multiple locations as noted by the Protestant bible scholar, Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.:

Sundberg: Old Testament of the Early Church

Hebrew manuscripts for most of Sirach exist after 19th century discoveries at the library of an ancient synagogue in Egypt, and Sirach appears in all of the earliest surviving Christian bibles.

Sundberg's conjectures regarding the OT canon are only conjecture.

Possession and canonicity are not synonyms

Sundberg: Old Testament of the Early Church

 

[1Thess521]

A writing breathed out by God: 1 Timothy 3:14-15, “14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

The writer is speaking on behalf of "the Church" and once again we see authority emanating from the leadership level of the Church. Personal interpretation of the scriptures is fraught with danger as people are apt to interpret them to suit there own preconceived notions. If personal interpretation was to be the the standard, there would have been no need for anyone to write instructions for anyone else.

Sola Scriptura is not about personal interpretation: it is about the hierarchy of authority.
Any writing breathed-out by God is more authoritative than anything the Church says.

someday Carm-posting Catholics will get that right.
Try using these descriptions of SS

From Catholic.com
the principle of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone"), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized

from New Advent
"The [first] objective [or formal] principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice (not the only source)"
" Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible,"

from Wiki
sola scriptura in contrast rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all subordinate authority is derived from the authority of the scriptures, and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not considered an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.

from https://www.reformandamin.org/
The heart of the battle over Sola Scriptura is a battle over the issue of authority. Who has the right to tell people what to believe and what to do? If the Bible is inspired by God, and thereby inerrant, then it is also authoritative. In other words, the revealed commands of God in Scripture are binding on the believer. When Scripture speaks, God speaks. However, during the medieval period, the Catholic Church raised “tradition” to a place of equal authority with Scripture.


from Zondervan Academic:
Sola Scriptura declares that only Scripture is our inerrant, sufficient, and final authority for the church, because it is God breathed and divinely inspired (2 Timothy 3:16). In the sixteenth century, this directly contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church, which elevated tradition and the Pope and magisterium’s authority to the level of Scripture itself.

from crosswalk
God's word has the highest authority for all of life. This does not mean that the Bible is clear on every issue or question we have—the Bible has little to say on how to speak Spanish or the scientific intricacies of rocket science. However, Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and takes supreme authority over our lives in every area it speaks to. This means that reason, logic, tradition, and experience and valid, but ultimately shall be submitted under scripture as our greatest authority

from Bible info
the Bible alone is the supreme authority for what Christians should believe and practice
etc
etc
etc

 

[Theophilos]

It is a myth either created or believed by Augustine. He should only be read with great caution because he just came out and flatly said that if the church says X it must be true and then he on to make up reasons why X is true, see his On The Care Of The Dead.

Or it comes from the teachings of the apostles and an understanding of the New Testament.

The New Testament quotes of the Old Testament show a strong preference for the LXX over the modern Hebrew text even when the LXX is much different from the Hebrew. In some cases the verses only appear in the LXX.

The Bereans and other Greek-speaking synagogues formed the basis of the early Church when they converted to Christianity. Their scriptures are the basis for the Old Testament found in the earliest surviving Christian bibles.

 

[1Thess521]

Or it comes from the teachings of the apostles and an understanding of the New Testament.

The New Testament quotes of the Old Testament show a strong preference for the LXX over the modern Hebrew text even when the LXX is much different from the Hebrew. In some cases the verses only appear in the LXX.

The Bereans and other Greek-speaking synagogues formed the basis of the early Church when they converted to Christianity. Their scriptures are the basis for the Old Testament found in the earliest surviving Christian bibles.

and i have a strong preference for the ESV over the KJV